How Marxists Subvert Western Society

This video from former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov, who defected towards the end of the Cold War, explains the process by which Moscow undermined the West from within; understanding this process is crucial to understanding the Sexual Revolution:



Highlights:

• 85% of KGB activity was subversive.

• Subversion -- A destructive, aggressive, activity aimed to destroy the target country.

• Sun Tzu -- Subvert your enemy until he no longer sees you as an enemy.

• FOUR STAGES OF SUBVERSION

1. Demoralization
   
   • 15 to 20 years
   • The time it takes to maleducate one generation.
   • Influencing public opinion via various means.
   • Stiring up greivances
   • Textbook Alinsky
   • Destroy and ridicule Biblical Religion and replace it with sects and cults.
   • Distract education away from traditional academics.
   • Exploit a gullible media.
   • Moral relativism
   • A slow watering down of standards.
   • Destroy the relationship between employer and employee.
   • Flood influencers of public opinion with Marxist propaganda about 'equality.'
2. Destabilization
   
   • Economy, Law and Order, Military.
   • Radicalization of the bargaining process.
   • Make Constructive compromise impossible.
   • Raise contempt for traditional sources of authority
   • Media Puts itself opposite society
   • Students spring into action
   • eg. Occupy Wall St
   • Antagonistic Clashes between groups of society.
     
3. Crisis
   
   • Traditional sources of authority collapse.
   • Growth of non-elected committees
   • Population looks for a 'savior'
   • Strongman comes in to stop chaos.
   • Top down, Bottom up, and inside out.
     
4. Normalization

• Self-appointed leaders no longer need revolution.
• Stabilize the situation by force.
• Elimination of agitators from earlier phases.
• At this point, requires military force to reverse.

The easiest way to combat this is to bring a society back to Biblical religion; faith in God prevents subversion.

Freedom To Succeed

This ad, from Thomas Peterffy, tells his story of growing up in Communist Hungary and the threats he see's to America's future coming from within:


(h/t Ted Cruz's facebook)

Debate Review: Ted Cruz vs Some Democrat Buffoon

Tonight, Ted Cruz debated his Democrat opponent Paul Sadler in the Texas U.S. Senate debate.  It wasn't close.  Paul Sadler is a buffoon and Ted wiped the floor with him.

The debate opened with Sadler attacking Ted for not agreeing to debate him six times over the month of October.  Sadler could have scored a cheap point on Ted and moved on, but instead chose to harangue Ted for the first five minutes of the debate over some alleged refusal to debate Sadler.  Ted finally shut Sadler down, telling him: "We are sitting here right now; you can launch every attack you want at me, right here on television."

It got worse from there.

After refusing to tell the audience how much money he had raised, Sadler moved on to asking Ted whether or not Ted considers Barack Obama to be a Christian.  Ted handled himself with class, where I would have been tempted to tell Sadler that I believe Obama worships himself, not God.

The debate discussed the economy, national security, Obamacare, and immigration.  If you followed Ted's primary, you know where he stands on these issues.  Ted explained his positions with the same clarity and common sense that got him elected in the first place.  Sadler, in addition to being incredibly left-wing, was shockingly ill-informed.  For example, in a discussion of Rand Paul's effort to halt foreign aid to Egypt and Libya, Sadler said: "if we don't stay involved in those governments, then Russia, China, those other countries will."  Sadler apparently was unaware that this is already happening; countries that hate America's guts will work together to undermine the United States no matter what we do.  That's no reason for American taxpayers to subsidize their activity.

On a personal note, I'm 99% sure I met Paul Sadler in a bar last year.  While I cannot be certain, the guy I was talking had similar body language and speech patterns to Sadler.  That guy also tried to pin me down on the "do you think Obama's a Christian" question. Again, I cannot be certain I was talking with Paul Sadler, but I strongly suspect so.  Either way, the guy I was talking to had some Occupy Wall St-esque things to say about how Jews control the banking system that I wouldn't put past the guy I saw on stage tonight.

 Ted Cruz was already going to win this race by twenty points; after tonight, he may win by fifty.

Mediterranean Update Tuesday: Islamists Love Hard-line Leftists

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Genesis 1:26

Well, it's official: anti-American Islamic Supremacist violence has spread to Greece.  Iran's apocalyptic President is meeting with Occupy Wall St, on American soil.  Meanwhile, the leftist government currently in charge of the United States is exploiting this crisis to advance a key component of the Islamic Supremacist agenda.

Chaos is here gang, and things are going to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

Islamists and Hard-line leftists work together because they're both Utopians who seek to radically alter the existing order.  Both Islamists and Hard-line leftists seek to subsume individual autonomy under an all powerful state, the only difference is between atheistic and theocratic tyranny.  Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which believes God created man in His image, threatens both; if God creates you in His image, then other men cannot subsume your rights under their tyranny.

This is nothing new.  Islamists have a long history of working with Hard-line Leftists against civilization.  The early Muslim Brotherhood were big fans of Hitler's leftist government.  Leftists routinely back Palestinian barbarism as some sort of 'resistance' to some non-existent occupation.  Don't get me started on leftist "human rights" lawyers that advance the Islamist agenda.

As much as I disagree with Mitt Romney on certain domestic issues, one thing he does understand is the situation in the Middle East.

TPPF Report Exposes Foundational Lie of Obamanomics

What would you say if I told you that a central premise of both Barack Obama's economic policy and the Occupy 'movement' was a conscious lie.  OK, so Barack Obama lying isn't exactly news, but this new report from the Laffer Center at the Texas Public Policy Foundation exposes the intellectual corruption at the heart of leftist economics.  Bottom Line: Income Inequality is a left wing hoax on par with Global Warming or Police Brutality.

In 2009, Barack Obama's First Budget made the following claim about Income Inequality:

For the better part of three decades, a disproportionate share of the Nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy. [Yet] instead of using the tax code to lessen these increasing wage disparities, changes in the tax code over the past eight years exacerbated them....By 2004, the wealthiest 10 percent of households held 70 percent of total wealth, and the combined net worth of the top 1 percent took home more than 22 percent of total national income, up from 10 percent in 1980. (9)

As the TPPF report details, Barack Obama's budget (and various Occupy mouthpieces) based their economic assumptions on this 2003 Paper by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.  The problem is that Piketty and Saez are either lying or they committed a mistake that's so amateur it demolishes their credibility.

The short version (*) of Piketty and Saez follows: during the (relatively) low-tax 1920's, the top 1% captured 18% of national income.  During the high-tax 1930's to 1970's, the top 1% took in 8% of national income.  Since the 1980's and the return of a (relatively) low-tax environment, that percentage returned to 17%.

Here's the problem: Piketty and Saez measure wage income, NOT total compensation.  As income taxes rise, wealthy people shift their compensation from taxable income to tax-free benefits such as Health Care and Country Club Membership.  As income taxes fall, wealthy people simply shift their compensation from benefits to income.  This is tax avoidance 101 type stuff.  Once you measure total compensation instead of income, the total held by the top 1% holds remarkably steady over time.

Unfortunately, while confiscatory taxation does little to alter so-called economic inequality, it is devastating to the economic growth necessary for the poor and middle class to get ahead on their own.  As the report, taking Piketty and Saez at face value, states:

To look at this 'stagflation" era [the 1970's], as it was derisively known at the time by those who experienced it, and top point out that income inequality was held at a low level [even though it wasn't] misses something essential.  Perhaps, in this long decade of minimal growth, the eating away of savings by inflation, the effective capital-gains tax rate often over 100% and the chronic joblessness -- the top tenth did take home a third of all national income, as opposed to 45% [even though they didn't], and the top hundredth of one percent did only make 50 times average, as opposed to 400 [even though they didn't].  But it was a miserable time to be a little guy, to try and get by, let alone strive to get ahead. (11)

Redistributive policies screw the little guy worst.

This report does an excellent job demonstrative that while confiscatory taxation does nothing to alter so-called inequality, it devastates the economic growth necessary for the poor and middle class to get ahead on their own.  In addition, the report provides a concise history of the first fifty years of the income tax that I found indispensable.  My only mild criticism is that I would prefer to have the central conclusions stated in bullet form at the beginning of the report, but that's a minor quibble.  This report exposes the intellectual corruption at the heart of Obamanomics and the Occupy 'movement.'  Bottom line: Income Inequality is a left-wing hoax on par with Global Warming and Police Brutality.

* I linked to the original paper for a reason; this paragraph is intended as a quick summary.

Update: The Communications director at TPPF writes to inform me that this report was done by the Laffer Center, NOT TPPF;  I have update this post.

Book Review: Eros and Civilization, by Herbert Marcuse

This book sucked, I really hated it.

Unfortunately, if you want to understand why today's teenagers and twenty-somethings are sooooooo stupid, Eros and Civilization is unavoidable.  Herbert Marcuse is a Godfather of today's debased culture.  While Marcuse's prose is poorly written and almost incoherent, his conclusion is terrifyingly accurate: Sexual Licence makes all forms of Utopianism an easy sell.

Utopians have used Sex to promote their evil schemes since the dawn of time.  In biblical times, Jezebel use sexual licence to convince King Ahab to subsidize the enemies of God (sidenote: Times NEVER Change).  The French Revolution is notorious for HORRID acts of sexual depravity.  In just the past year, we've heard about people going to Occupy Wall St. to get laid.

Herbert Marcuse, once you penetrate his incoherent ramblings, sought to use sex to reshape American culture.  While Marcuse never states his ultimate goal, in general it's a Marxist and Pagan scheme to create Heaven on Earth.  Marcuse channels Franklin Roosevelt to redefine freedom as "to live without anxiety (150)."  Since morality creates anxiety, for Marcuse man "is free only where he is free from constraint, external and internal, physical and moral -- when he is constrained neither by law nor by need (187)."  Predictably, Marcuse is not a fan of Judeo-Christian values, or traditional nuclear families.

Marcuse's primary strategy is to remove taboos against sexual perversion, making physical sensation the primary objective of human existence:

the perversions uphold sexuality as an end in itself; they place themselves outside the dominion of the performance principle and challenge its very foundation.  They establish libidinal relationships relationships which society must ostracize because they threaten to reverse the process of civilization....Moreover, licence in the practice of perversions would endanger the orderly reproduction not only of labor power but perhaps even of mankind itself. (50-1)

That quote speaks for itself.

This is evil stuff.  Unlike most Utopians, who advocate force, Marcuse advocates sexual temptation to undermine our better angels.  According to Marcuse, the human body would

 [N]o longer be used as a full time instrument of labor, the body would be resexualized....The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed -- an instrument of pleasure.  This change in the value of and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family. (201)

 That, of course, was the original Marxist goal.

As I've written before: "Cultural Marxists use sex as a smokescreen to sabotage the discipline necessary to delay gratification."  Sexual licence ALWAYS begets chaos.  Once chaos ensues, Utopians know they can lead people to Marxism and Paganism.

Free Love is an easy sell to ignorant people.  That's why evil people use sex as a smokescreen to advance their agenda, which is usually some form of Marxism or Paganism.  Eros and Civilization, in spite of the fact it's a poorly written incoherent slog, is a necessary step to decode that agenda.

May Day 2012: How to REALLY Return Power to the People

With Occupy taking back off, we're going to hear a lot about 'power to the people' over the next few months.  While the phrase 'power to the people' has been hijacked by Marxists, when properly understood the phrase is a call to federalism and local control.

In 2012 and 2013, Americans need to demand Washington D.C. return power to the states, that the states return power to local government, and that local governments and school boards use honest accounting.

From a [Texas-centric] policy perspective, this calls for Uproot and Overhaul at the Federal Level, the Texas Budget Compact at the State Level, and Texas Comptroller Susan Combs local government transparency proposals.

Keeping money and power close to the people keeps the dollar amounts smaller and requires fewer citizens to expose corruption.  It's easier to go to your local city council or school board meeting than it is to visit Austin or Washington D.C.  You only need one to two committed citizens to monitor a school board or local government.

We need to keep government spending as close to the people as possible, instead of laundering it through Washington D.C. and Austin and receiving a smaller amount back with strings attached.  Money laundering between various levels of government creates the conditions in which financial shenanigans flourish.  Large sums of money, laundered through various levels of government, also removes accountability from those who want to push radicalism on unsuspecting youngsters.  It's easier for Marxists to consolidate power at higher levels than across thousands of local jurisdictions; which is why the progressives set things up this way in the first place.

Federalism and local control have to become MAJOR issues against which we judge candidates, especially in primaries.  It's crucial to hold power as accountable to the people as possible.  Sending power as far down the chain of command denotes humility.  Any time you face a seemingly insurmountable problem, step one is ALWAYS to break that problem down into manageable chunks.  Uproot and Overhaul, and the Texas Budget compact are essential early steps....

Who's REALLY Imposing Their Values

Who's forcing their beliefs on whom?!?

• Who forced legal infanticide on the country with Roe vs. Wade?!? The Left.

• Who is using the force of government to corrupt a definition of marriage that has existed for Millenia?!? The Left.

• Who is going around forcing people to tear down crosses at Military Cemeteries?!? The Left.

• Who has used government funded sex education to teach perversion to impressionable children in Public Schools?!? The Left

• Who made Marijuana illegal?!?  The Left.

• Who is Mandating that Christian organizations violate the Sixth Commandment?!?  The Left

• Who is slowly making smoking tobacco illegal?!?  The Left.

I could go on, but the point is that the left is ALWAYS the aggressor in the culture war and the only thing Christians ever do is play defense.

Why Barack Obama REALLY Needs His Base

"The first step in Community Organization is community disorganization....Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation.  All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.....The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression."

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, p. 116

"There is nothing more draining, nothing more fatal, than this classical politics, with its dried up rituals, its thinking without thought, its little closed world....As the welfare state collapses, we see the emergence of brute conflict between those who desire order and those who don't....To the point that any return to normal is no longer desirable or even imaginable....It is now publicly understood that crisis situations are so many opportunities for the restructuring of domination....How does a situation of generalized rioting become an insurrectionary situation?!?

- The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, pp. 11-19

"[W]e decided to declare May 1st, 2012 a People’s General Strike. Instead of calling upon unionized Labor to make a specific demand (illegal under Taft-Hartley), we are calling upon the people of the world to take this day away from school and the workplace, so that their absence makes their displeasure with this corrupt system be known."

- OccupyMay1st.org

Barack Obama cannot win this election.  He knows it.  That's why he's deliberately sowing chaos.

For months, people have been accusing President Obama of ginning up his base to help his re-election effort.  They miss Obama's purpose by a country mile.  Barack Obama isn't ginning up his base to show up at the polls, Obama is ginning up his base to riot.

The dirty little secret is that Obama's base isn't big enough to win an election.  That is why Democrats have to lie and pretend to be conservatives in order to win elections.  Furthermore, Obama's base doesn't reliably vote.  But people who don't vote will still riot.

Barack Obama's base consists of certain minorities (mainly blacks), Jon Stewart's audience, and the Unions.  If you look at who is fomenting chaos, it's these three groups.  The New Black Panthers are the Black element.  Occupy Wall St. is Jon Stewart's audience.  Unions are notorious commie thugs.  I expect La Raza to get into the action soon.

 The purpose of riots is to disrupt daily life, which confuses and frightens the broad apolitical middle.  This has three potential benefits for the left:

1) Overwhelming the New Administration - I think this is the real objective; as I wrote in February:

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

2) Bullying the Broad Apolitical Middle so they 'volutarily' Give The Left What They Want -  If the situation gets stressful enough, people who don't follow politics closely may decide that the path of least resistence is to give the rioters what they want.

3) Instigate a Massive Crackdown - This is what Glenn Beck thinks is the end-game.  George Soros has expressed similar sentiments.  I'm skeptical; as Alinsky says:

As an organizer I start where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be — it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be.

I don't think the American people are far enough gone, yet, to accept a massive crackdown.  A crackdown could wake up the broad apolical middle to the point where they wise-up to the left.  To me, instigating a massive crackdown seems too big a risk to the broader Marxist project.  On the other hand, if they could instigate a massive crack-down several years down the road, under a Republican, then they could demonize it.

If Barack Obama's base is angry, they'll create chaos, which is Obama's real objective. Historically, authority figures cave to this sort of thuggery, or tragedy ensues.  The possible difference, this time, is that there might be a critical mass of citizens who understand the game being played.

Conservatives need to wrap their heads around this reality.  We are going to win this election, then we're going to assume power amidst massive chaos.  When that happens we need to understand the game the left is really playing.  As the Invisible Committee said:

The Goal of any insurrection is to become irreversable. (130)

Forewarned is forearmed.

Why Obama Just CAN'T Win

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, Rule #1

This is textbook Alinsky.

Barack Obama is in much worse shape politically than most people (with the notable exception of Rush) realize; he cannot win this election.  He can no longer even keep it close enough to steal.  That's why he's deliberately sowing chaos.

Most people, even on our side, have no clue just how much trouble Obama really is in.  This purpose of this piece is to present the evidence.  What's surprised me in working on this piece is how strong the case Obama can't win really is, and how much I had to cut.

Just a reminder, to win a Presidential election, you need 270 electoral votes.

I base my understanding of Barack Obama's efforts on his publicly announced re-election strategy.  Also, this fact-free video from Obama's campaign backs up the understanding from the Jay Cost piece.  The short version is this: Obama plans to win re-election by boosting turnout among minorities (especially Hispanics) and the Jon Stewart crowd and mitigating his losses among everyone else.

The biggest problem with Obama's publicly announced re-election strategy is that it's never been done before.  As Cost notes:

So this would be a path to 270 electoral votes that might include Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia (which historically have been Republican) but not Ohio (a quadrennial swing state) or even Pennsylvania (which historically has been Democratic).

That's not to say it's impossible, but it seems highly improbable.   Also, as this video from the RNC makes clear, the state by state polling data for Obama in the key states STINKS.

Finally, whatever flaws he might have, Karl Rove has been doing an excellent job tracking Obama's fundraising and it also stinks.  As Karl observes:

Last July, President Obama's campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign's goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.

Seven months later, I'm even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC.

By themselves the interrelated issues of Economy/Bailouts/Debt/Spending/Health Care and Obama's Catastrophic Foreign Policy nearly doom Obama; those broad national issues are anvils around Obama's ankles.  Beyond national issues and campaign inside baseball, however, certain actions by the Obama administration alienate key voter groups in key states in a way that makes it impossible for Obama to get to 270 electoral votes.

Consider the following seven examples:

Catholic Church and Obama's War on Faith:
I've already discussed this issue at length.  The short version is that Catholics are almost perfectly distributed across traditional swing states in a way that alienating them does unique damage.

Beyond the simple distribution of where Catholics live and vote, alienating Catholics is stupid from an ideological perspective.  Despite Chris Matthews' ill-informed suppositions, most Catholics aren't particularly conservative.  As Jonathan Last notes: Catholics "tend to be politically liberal and socially cautious. If they were less holy men, stauncher conservatives would call them squishes."  Remember, Obama won Catholics in 2008 and many Catholic Institutions supported Obamacare in 2010.

Finally, for a campaign that has based so much of it's publicly announced strategy around courting Hispanics, it's worth noting that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Israel:
Anyone who thinks Obama's shameful treatment of Israel won't cost him significant votes missed the special election in New York City last September.  In that election, Republican Bob Turner won in large part due to opposition to the Obama administration's Israel policy.  As the Jerusalem Post reported at the time:

The district, well known for being a Democratic stronghold, was captured by the Republicans after their successful efforts to reframe the race as being an opportunity to “send a message” to Washington – and to tap into Jewish discontent with the US president’s Middle East policies. 

...

“In Tuesday’s special election, Jewish voters supported the Republican candidate by a clear, but not massive majority. That vote evidences a maturity of judgment as opposed to robotic partisanship.

“Thus, unlike some other minorities who instinctively vote for the candidate of their race or religion, irrespective of whether they are the best candidate,” Zell concluded, “the Jews in NY-9 voted on principle and ignored our common religion with Mr. Weprin to support the candidate who will support Israel most effectively.”

In that election, Turner was supported by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch (D).   Since then, Prof. Alan Dershowitz, another prominent liberal Jew, has turned on Obama's allies at Media Matters.

Alienating Jewish voters over Israel hurts Obama in Florida and Pennsylvania.  Based on the economy alone, I doubt Obama can win Florida; Obama's treatment of Israel seals this deal.  Remember, liberal Jews in Palm Beach county were at the center of the 2000 election controversy.  There are over 600,000 Jews living in Florida and a modest shift in their voting, on top of the general disgust that exists with Obama over the economy, makes winning Florida damn near impossible for Obama.  We'll cover Pennsylvania in more detail next.

Energy Development:
Barack Obama's refusal to permit energy development hurts him in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and even less-traditional swing states like Virginia.  Obama's opposition to energy development makes an abstract argument against Obama's economic policies VERY concrete.  While Obama said some nice things about natural gas in his State of the Union, SOTU speeches are notoriously meaninglessness.

Energy issues are unique in that they give Republican Governors like John Kasich in Ohio and Bob McDonnell in Virginia an opportunity to kick the crap out of Obama in local media.  As gas prices continue to rise and employment continues to stagnate, the daily contrast between Obama and the Goverors of these key states can only hurt Obama.

Immigration:
As noted above, mobilizing Hispanics is a key element of Obama's publicly announced strategy.  Obama needs Hispanics to show up and vote for him in droves if he hopes to win Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.  Unfortunately, for Hispanics, Obama has been all over the place on Immigration reform.  The biggest problem with Obama is that he promised the moon to Hispanics on Immigration and he's failed to deliver or even fight particularly hard.  Most people can live with a failure to deliver, but they can't stand being pandered to insincerely.

Obama is correct when he states that deportations are at an all time high, but he fails to mention that the bulk of those deportations are from illegals who are basically harmless. Meanwhile Obama hasn't done squat about the Drug Cartels that threaten the daily physical safety of Hispanics.  As I noted in this space a few weeks ago, Obama's failures have created an opportunity for Republicans among South Texas Hispanics.  I strongly suspect a similar dynamic exists in other states.

Medical Marijuana:
This is the most politically stupid thing the Obama administration has done.  As the Cost piece above states, Obama's publicly announced re-election strategy is dependent on heavy turnout among the Jon Stewart crowd.  In February 2009, Obama's Justice Department promised to end raids on Medical Marijuana clinics.  In 2011, Obama broke that promise.  This is a surprisingly big issue in Colorado, and it antagonizes Obama's biggest supporters.  On Medical Marijuana, Obama has treated the Jon Stewart crowd the same way he's treated Hispanics on Immigration.

This is the one issue I've seen anger my Obamabot friends.  I don't know how many of these folks will vote for a Republican, but considering how few of them follow politics closely, it wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of them pull a classic stoner move and forget to vote.  Could you pick a stupider issue on which to alienate the Jon Stewart crowd?!?

North Carolina:
Barack Obama's publicly stated strategy hinges on North Carolina.  All the "smart" people (who aren't really that smart) say the election will come down to North Carolina.  That's why the Demorcat Party convention is in Charlotte.

Unfortunately, for Obama, he won North Carolina by less than 14,000 votes in 2008.  The Democrat Governor has chosen not to run for re-election in the face of persistently high unemployment.  And finally, Obama's violent allies in Occupy Wall St have promised to make their presence felt at the Democrat party convention; how'd that work out in 1968?!?

The conventional wisdom that the 2012 election will come down to North Carolina is painfully weak and Obama can't win without it.

Wisconsin:
While the so-called smart people are telling us the election will come down to North Carolina (traditional Republican state), the truth is that this election will come down to Wisconsin (traditional Democrat state).  Over the past year, Wisconsin has been the most important state to watch in politics.  Governor Scott Walker, elected in 2010, has enacted sweeping structural reforms to fix his state Government.  As a result, he now faces a recall from the state's public employee unions.  As the American Thinker reports:

So is the left winning there?  Wisconsin is a left-leaning state, the sort whose general support Democrats need if they are going to rule America.  If Democrats fail in these recall elections, then the left will have suffered a strategic loss which may unravel its long dominance of American politics.

....

The efforts to stop Walker's reforms include: (1) Democrat state senators fleeing to Chicago, that Mecca of Good Government, to deny their chamber a quorum, (2) mobs of angry state employees trying to bully legislators, (3) trying to defeat Judge Prosser to get a more favorable judge on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (4) trying to recall enough Republican state senators to give back control to Democrats, (5) litigating the new labor law as "unconstitutional" and failing, and now, (6) trying to recall the governor, lieutenant governor, and three Republican state senators.

The left has pulled out all the plugs to thwart Governor Walker.  In the recall election for six Republican state senators last August, the left spent about $30 million, much of it from outside the state.

....

Most of all, if the left throws every single weapon it can at Wisconsin Republicans and yet cannot prevent a conservative agenda from becoming law, then the left must know that it is vulnerable everywhere to conservatives who do not back down.  If this last desperate effort of the power-mongers of leftism fails, then their whip may become a wet noodle, and the whole corrupt syndicate of leftism may completely unravel.  Watch Wisconsin.

 The American Thinker piece captures most of what you need to know about Wisconsin.  I'll only add a few points.  First, the union assault on the (repeatedly demonstrated) will of Wisconsin voters alienates the broad apolitical middle.  Second, because the unions have forced Tea Party groups in Wisconsin to stay in the fight, Tea Party groups in Wisconsin are becoming incredibly battle hardened.  Finally, by the time November rolls around, the contrast between Governor Walker's successful reforms and Barack Obama's failure will be obvious.

While it's premature to make definitive statements about November, early signs are very positive.

What does this all mean?!?
In 2008, Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes.  He won't win Indiana (11 EV, 40.1% Job Approval).  That means he caps out at 354 EV.

From those 354 EV, I've identified major trouble for him among voter groups that are essential to his publicly announced strategy in Wisconsin (10 EV, 47.4% JA), Florida (29 EV, 43.6% JA), Pennsylvania (20 EV, 45.0% JA), Ohio (18 EV, 42.1% JA), Virginia (13 EV, 44.5% JA), Colorado (9 EV, 40.4% JA -- ouch), New Mexico (5 EV, 41.7% JA), Nevada (6 EV, 41.3% JA), and North Carolina (15 EV, 43.7% JA).

Even without including Michigan (16 EV, 48.1% JA) or Iowa (6 EV, 45.6% JA) in the Republican column, that leaves Obama with 229 EV.  You need 270 Electoral votes to win.  For those of you in Rio Linda, 270 is a bigger number than 229.

Barack Obama already knows everything I've outlined in this piece.  He has access to much more sophisticated polling data than I do.  That's why his administration and Occupy Wall St is deliberately sowing chaos.

Conservatives need to understand reality and act within it.  Stop worrying about losing this election and start planning for assuming power amidst massive chaos.

It's really that simple.

Update:  My dumb ass forgot to factor in Electoral Vote Re-Apportionment from the Census in that analysis: subtract another 11 EV from Obama.  I got it right the first time.

On Treyvon Martin, Manufacturing Outrage, and Chaos

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization.  The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.  Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation (*).  All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page 116

*Keep in mind, for Alinsky 'Citizen Participation' is a euphemism for ginning up an angry mob.

If you haven't heard about the Treyvon Martin story this past week, you're living under a rock; something about this story stinks. 

The main thing that bugs me about this story is the speed with which it's taken off.  Over the past week, I've seen it go from obscure websites, to Think Progress and the Huffington Post, then to ABC News.  Each time the story has moved forward, it's gotten posted on more Facebook pages.  Considering everything we know about Media Matters, something doesn't add up.  I can't shake the feeling that we're at the beginning of another Tawana Brawley Yankel Rosenbaum episode.

So, what's going on and why would anyone advance something like this?!?

In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky said: "Before men can act on an issue it must become polarized" (78). I've believed, for some time now, that some VERY powerful forces are deliberately sowing anger and chaos in America.  If you're looking to polarize the nation to sow anger and chaos, this story is perfect.  Consider:

• Is the story racially charged?!?  Check
• Does the story demonize gun owners?!?  Check
• Is the story friendly to straw man arguments?!?  Check
• Does the story lend itself to an easy villain?!? Check
• Is the Villain tailor made for an angry mob?!?   Good Grief, Check

Saul Alinsky's eleventh rule teaches: "Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It  and Polarize It."  George Zimmerman is the perfect demon for this sort of campaign.  Based on media reports, George Zimmerman does not seem to be a good guy.  He's easy to demonize.  This is key, because if you're looking create an escalating series of demons to gin-up anger and chaos, then the first demon has to be someone or something indefensible.  Remember, long before Barack Obama demonized Jews and Catholics, Michael Bloomberg demonized smokers.

It's an old saying, but a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That's why I don't trust stories that appear out of nowhere on the internet.  A year ago, you had this phony Arab Spring take off out of nowhere on the internet, we now know that was a lie.  A month ago, you had the #PhonyKony internet video, we also know that was a lie.  This Trayvon Martin story stinks worse than those other two, and I cannot shake the feeling that it's sophistocated twenty-first century cyber-astroturf.    I've tried to start viral campaigns on the internet, and it's hard; it's a lot easier if you have powerful people helping you behind the scenes.

So, what does this all mean?!?  It's impossible to know at this point, but if the following events happened, it wouldn't surprise me:

1. Several months from now, we learn this is a massive Overton Window.
2. We start seeing gun owners demonized as racist
3. George Zimmerman ends up being the first person dragged into the streets and killed by Occupy Wall St.

Again, caution is in order, because we don't know the full facts.  But something about this case stinks.

It stinks BADLY.

The Great Lie and Marxist Sexual "Freedom"

"Now the Serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made and he said unto the woman(1)....your eyes shall be open and you shall be as gods (5)....and the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (13)."  Genesis 3:1-13

"Lest we forget an over the shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical...who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." Saul Alinsky

Marxist Sexual values are the tip of the Cultural Marxist spear that is poisoning our society.  Cultural Marxism uses Marxist ideology to reshape basic social values.  To paraphrase Herbert Marcuse one of the founders of Cultural Marxism:

the current organization of society [has] produced "surplus repression" by imposing socially unnecessary labor, unnecessary restrictions on sexuality, and a social system organized around profit and exploitation. In light of the diminution of scarcity and prospects for increased abundance, Marcuse called for the end of repression and creation of a new society.

Cultural Marxists understand that in order to re-create society in their evil image, you first need to undermine the "bourgeois" values that create a successful society in the first place.  In order to undermine self-reliance, Cultural Marxists use sex to sabotage the discipline necessary to delay gratification.  By surrendering to your primal lusts, instead of controlling (to the best of your ability) those lusts, you undermine your own self-respect; anyone who has ever taken a walk of shame knows this.  This is a deliberate form of mind control; once individuals give into chaos and disorder in their personal lives, Cultural Marxists know eventually society will give into chaos and disorder followed by tyranny.  Cultural Marxists use sex as a smokescreen, a VERY tempting smokescreen, and they've been VERY successful.

Potential for sexual decadence (which, in reality, never materializes as planned) makes utopianism an easy sell. As author Lisa Fabrizio has noted the Marxist:

conception of sex is that exercise of bodily functions that exists only for the use of human beings by other human beings solely as instruments of physical pleasure; often perversely so.

Cultural Marxists understand that, once people give into basic sexual urges, you can then re-shape their values in all sorts of other ways.  As just one small example, once we've made our own souls subservient to physical urges, it's a small step morally to make an unborn child's very life subservient to those same urges.  Marxist values re-define sex from an act of sharing and creation into an act of selfish gratification.

Cultural Marxists redefine freedom by confusing liberty and license.  Actions have consequences; traditional Western values believe you should be free to engage in the actions you choose so long as you're prepared to accept the consequences.  Marxists pervert that definition of freedom into one where you're encouraged to engage in self-destructive actions and some mythical "rich" person will subsidize the consequence.

There's a vast difference between letting people make their own decisions and celebrating their worst traits.  For example, should a woman choose to get gang-banged by the football team, traditional western values wouldn't stop her from engaging in that action, but they would insist that her and her family and her church bear the full cost of it's consequences.  Marxists, on the other hand, would say that she's the victim of a sexist 'power structure' and is thus entitled to a "free" abortion or treatment for the ensuing STD.  For the record, most women I know don't define freedom as having the government pay to have their insides scraped out by some abortionist after getting gang-banged by the football team.

These sexual decisions have very real economic consequences for society.  As history teaches, once a society collapses morally, economic collapse shortly follows.   As Dr. Melissa Clouthier details:

The nut of Sandra Fluke’s argument is this: pay for my contraception. If it doesn’t work, pay for my abortion. If I decide to have the kid, but not work and do something like “community organizing” or “reproductive rights activism”, pay for my lifestyle choice. 

And herein lies the problem with a purely libertine argument: Someone has to pay for all this freedom.

True personal liberty comes with a lot of personal responsibility.

The way it stands now, though, feminists are pushing for the state to take care of everything.  ...A truly “free” woman would pay for her choices, but the fact is, that these choices can all be very expensive.

Simply put, subsidizing the consequences of bad sexual decisions for everyone in society will undermine the individual personality traits that allows a productive economy to exist in the first place. 

Marxists claim they're the descendents of the Summer of Love and Woodstock.  That's true.  What Marxists fail to mention is that, just as night follows day, Altamont, Kent State, and Roe v. Wade are the inevitable consequences of the Summer of Love and Woodstock.  The sexual revolution lead to dramatic increases in abortion, divorce and illegitimacy; none of that is good.  Sex always has consequences, both good and bad; as a society, shouldn't we seek to maximize the former and minimize the latter?!?

Morality is the character to do what you should, and a free society in the traditional sense depends on it.  Sex, as anyone who's been sexually active for more than thirty seconds knows, can be either the most amazingly wonderful thing in this world, or the most terribly awful.  Whether sex is amazing or terrible depends on the underlying moral framework you approach it with.  As Match.com has documented married, conservative, Christians have the most and the best sex.  Marxist sexual values, on the other hand, lead to really, really, REALLY bad sex.  Good sex NEVER ends in a walk of shame or abortion; traditional sexual morality never necessitates "Rape Free Zones."

Marxist sexual values are the serpent, and the rest of us are Eve.

Author's Note: I wrote this piece over three sessions.  During the first session, I could not help overhearing/eavesdropping on a conversation three tables down about some girl's attempt to get a cervical cancer screening via Planned Parenthood and her four month (and counting) wait time.  This has to be said....

Financial Terrorism, the 2008 Crash, and the Coming Chaos‏

I finished Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapon a couple weeks ago.  I highly recommend it if you're interested in knowing what really happened in 2008 and how the same folks are setting us up for an even bigger attack later this year soon.  The short version: the 2008 crash was a coordinated financial attack on the United States by foreign enemies.

First things first, everything we know about the 2008 crash is still true; it's just that the collapse of the housing bubble didn't cause the crash, the bubble bursting merely left us vulnerable to an attack from foreigners.  Essentially, our government forced our banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back, then dumped those loans into Fannie and Freddie, which then left all sorts of folks over leveraged when the you know what hit the fan.  That's when the foreign involvement comes in.

The Cliff's notes version follows: using Naked Short Selling (short selling without ever borrowing, let alone Owning, the underlying asset), Credit Default Swaps, and the Wall Street herd mentality/group think foreign entities launched bear raids (spreading rumors to undermine confidence in a company) to attack first Bear Stearns, then Fannie and Freddie, then Lehman in order to collapse the U.S. Stock Market and Economy.

To put it mildly, they succeeded.

This leaves some obvious questions, the first one being 'who is they?'  The short version is that we don't know, these financial transactions occur behind a veil of secrecy that us rubes in flyover country aren't supposed to penetrate.  The longer, and probably more accurate, version is that strong circumstantial evidence suggests it was a combination of the ChiComs and various Muzzie groups in the Middle East and Gulf.  It seems safe to guess that the usual suspects between the various Leftist (incl. Putin, the ChiComs, and Soros), Islamist, and Drug Cartel groups worked together in some form.

Next, have we addressed our vulnerabilities since 2008?!?  Good Grief no, we've only made them worse.  Part of the purpose of the 2008 attack was to get the U.S. govt. and Fed to spend massive amounts of money to bail out the various institutions attacked and their various counter parties in order to ruin the balance sheet of the Federal Government and soften the U.S. up for the next attack (which is probably coming this summer).  Think about how much weaker of a position our national balance sheet is in as a result of Obama's spending.  Making matters worse, despite public claims to the contrary, the government has taken ZERO steps to actually fix our underlying vulnerabilities to economic terrorism while it has simultaneously jacked up regulations in just about every other area of the economy.  These jacked up regulations (which, it cannot be emphasized enough, do ZERO to address the underlying causes of the 2008 crash) meanwhile stifle the economic growth that would make another economic terrorist attack at least manageable.

So, what is the next attack?!?  Hard to know for sure in advance, but once Greece inevitably defaults, it will set off a chain reaction of Global Chaos that will provide the perfect backdrop for an invisible attack on the dollar.  The long term objective is to collapse the dollar and replace it as the global reserve currency.

I'll answer questions to the best of my ability, but you're better off just reading the book; you can get through it in about six hours if you're diligent.

I hope this helps.

Update (4/1/2013): Ok, so the crash didn't happen last year; but it's more inevitable than ever.

Why Barack Obama Wants Chaos

Barack Obama and the Hard Left are laying a trap for the next President.  Unless the Republican nominee recognizes and prepares for this trap, he risks walking right into it when he assumes office next January.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left are currently sowing chaos that they hope will overwhelm the first year of the next administration in order to entrench the "Fundamental Transformation" he's already got written.

To prepare for this trap, the next President must understand Barack Obama's real agenda.  Barack Obama's actions over the last year reveal a man clearly uninterested in re-election.  For example, Catholics are swing voters in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida; why would any politician interested in winning an election in those states issue a mandate that offends the deepest moral beliefs of The Catholic Church?!?  Clearly, a politician interested in those states would NEVER take such an action.  Thus, one must conclude Barack Obama is uninterested in re-election.  What, then, is Barack Obama's real agenda?!?

Barack Obama's primary agenda, at this point, is to ensure the legislative changes he has already accomplished go fully into effect.  To secure his fundamental transformation of America, Barack Obama and the Hard Left will sow chaos throughout the United States and the World in 2012.  Expect that chaos to spillover into 2013/14 and the first year of the new administration, regardless of the new President's identity.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that, in American politics, major changes in policy occur almost exclusively in the first year of new Presidential administrations.  Thus, Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that if the new President spends 2013 reacting to National and Global Chaos, this window for major policy changes can pass without unwinding Obama's previous legislative victories.

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

At CPAC 2011, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the left "need only play good defense.  The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought.   The health care travesty now on the books will engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent, and it won?t take long to happen."  Conservatives MUST remember this fact as we move forward into 2012 and beyond.  Between Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Automatic Defense Cuts, Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of America is already law.  During the coming chaos, whether it's in the form of #Occupy Related Violence, Drug Cartel Violence, a shooting war in the Middle East or any other source, the Federal Bureaucracy will continue business as usual.  Under current law, business as usual will entrench Barack Obama's fundamental transformation.  That's one of the reasons we should expect the coming chaos to continue (at least) into 2014 which is, NOT coincidentally, the year Obamacare goes into full effect.

Fortunately, the coming chaos is a surmountable challenge.  The key, for conservatives, is to recognize the coming chaos for what it really is and act accordingly.  That means electing to Congress committed conservatives who will enact conservative legislation NO MATTER WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD.

The coming chaos is deliberate, and Barack Obama and the Hard Left are behind it.  Their goal is to distract and confuse the new administration in 2013 the same way the hard left did to Richard Nixon in 1969.  Forewarned is forearmed and, as long as a conservative Congress is willing to move forward no matter what, they will fail....